Facebook recently, and I was wondering where it came from and what the story behind it was. It truly is frightening how very similar all fundie ideologies appear to be. Then again, they all have the same goal and purpose and end game, which is total authoritarian theocratic control based on only THEIR beliefs. Holly's picture reminds me of the pic of Caribou Barbie wrapped in a flag shawl holding a bible. In fact, I wish I had the techie skills to post that pic along next to these two pics.

The U.S. Flag Code, section 4-(d): "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery...."

Flag protocol is very, very detailed and taken not at all lightly by many people.

Freedom and liberty to them is the right to do everything wrong, just to tick off nanny state liberals!

They'll get around to repealing that Code with all the rest of those laws as soon as possible.

At least that's what Boehner said he was elected for, to repeal laws and not make them. Libertarians say all rules and laws are oppressive!

The only patriots are the ones who want to get rid of the USA government because it's all evil, ya know.

I've often pointed out how the extreme Christian right bears much in common with the Islamic extremists they say they hate so much. Both fervently cling to their flags. Both want to push their religious extremism on others. Both tend to have an affinity for assault rifles. Both hate homosexuals, even to the point of putting them to death.

It really is quite amazing how much they have in common with each other.

people who have temporal lobe seizures are often highly religious. i take that as a clue.

People who have temporal lobe issues are really no more prone to Fundamentalism than people with perfectly functioning brains. There are probably staunch atheists who have lobe seizure issues, as well.....doesn't mean that their atheism was caused by such. Just saying, though.

Also the concept of fundamentalism isn't unique to just people of faith. All it basically involves is wanting to impose one's beliefs on others and disrespecting the other side's perspective. There's no room for any gray area in fundamentalist thinking.

In addition, I got dragged against my better judgment to a meeting of objectivists. Both groups were equally fanatical and as equally based in magical thinking as any religious nut out there.

It doesn't matter if you blame a god, an author, or the wedgie you're getting from tight underwear. It's all the same thing and it's universally pathological.

I recently discovered it as part of my journey into the dark side of the Christian Theocratic movement in the US.

Wonder why he was "staunchly" opposed to Marxism, given that he was a proletarian? Did he self identify as a proletarian or is that an observation of his philosophy?

Here is something I wrote recently, on the Why I am A Marxist and My Political Ideology thread:

As W. E. B. Du Bois said, Marx "put his finger squarely upon our difficulties." He explained the problems of his day very well. Marx did several things. He is considered to be one of the founders of modern social sciences, along with Émile Durkheim and Max Weber. Unlike many other intellectuals of his time, he insisted that social theories must be examined through a scientific method to see if they world work. Marx is also notable for writing mostly for the poor and disenfranchised, whereas his contemporaries wrote mostly for fellow intellectuals. A talented economist, Marx helped the world understand capitalism better than anyone since Adam Smith -- for example, he was the first to explain why the previously feudal countries of Europe became industrial economies and capitalist powerhouses. Much of what he wrote about how capitalism works stands up to scrutiny close to 200 years later, leading some to call him the father of economic history. The study of sociology was also highly influenced by Marx's writings.

Although many people today think of him as a dangerously misguided individual, the modern understanding of social science and economics - both liberal and conservative - owes an enormous debt to him and his theories. Similarly, his critiques of capitalism and advocacy of communism seem less applicable in the modern world (not that he is no longer relevant). However at the time he was writing, the conditions for the working class, especially in England (where he wrote Capital), were truly appalling, and much of the ideas and movements that would improve and reform it -- and, ironically, blunt so much of communism's power -- were still considered seditious. A year before Marx began his studies at the University of Bonn, England transported several men to Australia for forming a union.

Ultimately, what Marx didn't reckon on was the dynamism of democracy in order to effect change. Remember, Marx was writing during a time when there was no minimum wage, no worker protection, no welfare system, no laws against child labor, not anti-trust or anti-monopoly laws, no laws demanding truthful advertising, no laws banning unsafe products, no laws guaranteeing rights to women and minorities (and, in a lot of cases, for Europeans and men, too), and, for most of the world, no voting rights for most people. We have come a long way since Marx's time, and he is arguably vindicated by history.

A good way to understand Marx is that he was a lot like a medical doctor of his time: By the end of Marx's life, medicine had discovered germ theory and understood what caused disease, but although it could now prevent the spread of illness (through quarantine, sterilization of operating rooms, and good public health/sanitation policy), when it came to treating people who were already ill, the doctors couldn't do much better than their grandfathers. Marx figured out what was wrong with the new industrial capitalism, but as far as how to handle it, he couldn't do much better than proposing the kind of utopian socialism that had been presented in the early 19th century, rather than the somewhat odd and piecemeal form of modern social democracy.

I wonder why he was "staunchly" opposed to Marx. Was he a contemporary? I understand there existed competing thoughts on how to struggle against/overcome the Capitalist system.. just wondering what his specific issue with Marxism was, given that you said "staunchly opposed". that has a certain emphasis that caught my attention. that's all..

He thought it was crap as a politico-economic ideology. Most of the Marxists he knew were Stalinists, and he despised totalitarianism of all stripes.

It should also be noted that there isn't "one" socialism. There are a lot of different currents within socialism such as libertarian socialism (anarchism). It should also be noted that Marx didn't invent scientific socialism. He "borrowed" from the anarchist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's The Politics of Misery, who in turn, "borrowed" from socialists thinkers before him.

I like your critique. Just wanted to add information about extra-Marxist socialism. I've also posted a little more detailed post about the differences somewhere else in this thread.

Cheers!

Socialists in the anarchist tradition, as well as other currents, are opposed to Marxist theory of revolution. His critique of capitalism is good, but which was "borrowed" from the anarchist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. It's Marx's ideas about utilizing the state and a paternal vanguard party which is unappealing to libertarian socialists of whatever type. Mikhail Bakunin, who was Marx's adversary in the First International (International Working Men's Association), correctly predicted that a Marxist Party would only replace a capitalist dictatorship with one of their own, as explicitly laid out by Marx himself who stated that the intermediate stage of Communism is a socialist state administered by a vanguard party, and that the state would wither away. Anarchists have no such delusions, and despite their own disagreements, advocate the destruction of the state and capitalism, as they are both inextricably linked. That a socialist revolution must come from the rank and file, and not on their behalf. It should be noted that Marx didn't believe the lumpen-proletariat and peasants should or could be part of the revolution, whereas, anarchists include the petty-bourgeois, proletariat, lumpen-proletariat, and peasants to be part of the same class, and that all should be included in any revolution.

To be fair to Marx, though, he did modify his thoughts on the nature of revolution when he witnessed the anarchists take over their own workplaces in the Paris and Leon Communes.

You can learn more here:

Marxism & Anarchism (This is a Marxist website)

You can learn more about anarchism here:

Anarchism: From Theory to Practice by Daniel Guerin

Anthropologist David Graeber has distinguished the two philosophies as follows:

Marxism has tended to be a theoretical or analytical discourse about revolutionary strategy. Anarchism has tended to be an ethical discourse about revolutionary practice.

Benjamin Tucker, an individualist anarchist, proclaimed:

Every anarchist is a socialist, but not every socialist is an anarchist.

It should be noted that the above information is for illustrative purposes to distinguish between Marxism and anarchism. It's not meant to be taken as a critique. My fellow workers, whether Marxist or anarchist, are my comrades.

Cheers.

Thank you

On edit-- just down loaded a copy on my iPad-- I am several books behind, but happy to add this one.

... who are staunchly opposed to Marxism.

Probably not



'staunch' atheist? No such thing

Too funny, have to remember that one.

Their brains are so infected with religie think, it clouds every thought

The Dalai Lama has said that his personal religion is "loving kindness."

The Karmapa has said,

You know, the word religion has the same impersonal effect on me as the words politics or business. In reality, faith is about our own personal ethics, your own individual system of values.

I don't think of Buddhism as a religion. I see it as a philosophy (one I tend to agree with more often than not, in general terms.) In my opinion, a religion requires at least 1 god. I freely admit, though, that I don't get to decide that issue... heheh.

Regardless of that, I do hope you realize that what I said was not intended to be offensive to anyone in the atheist community(although I do apologize if I did somehow). All I was trying to say is that lobe seizure issues, as serious as they may be, do not necessarily cause one to be extremely religious, or even the other way around. If I may be frank, it's kinda like saying that having ADD makes you a libertarian, or that being an Aspie gives you a predisposition towards hardcore conservatism. Of course, neither of these are true, but what I'm saying is, someone suffering a certain disorder or other problem isn't going to necessarily contribute to how they view the world.(I should know in regards to the former example, btw; I have ADD myself and I'm pretty far removed from any libertarian.)

Staunch
a : watertight, sound
b : strongly built : substantial
2 : steadfast in loyalty or principle <a staunch friend>

Atheist
: one who believes that there is no deity

Not seeing why there would be no such thing?

1.) As a trained chef, I love your screenname.

2.) You really believe there are no atheists out there who are militant and mentally-inflexible on questions of theism? I assure you there are. Pretty much any absolute statement is provably false. In this case, I know such a staunch atheist. My brother, Crash. If he had definite proof of the existence of God, he'd burn it because humanity would still be better off sans religion. We have these kinds of deep intellectual conversations frequently. He doesn't understand how I can be an agnostic...it's so "wishy-washy" and unconfident. Most things are wishy-washy and unconfident for me...I see the world in shades of gray and along subjective spectrums.

As am I, and as I believe most atheists are. Agnosticism and atheism are two different things. Agnostic (not knowing) and atheism (not believing) are mutually compatible. I am an agnostic atheist, in that I don't believe there is a god or gods and that I believe that we can (probably) never know whether there is one or not. Your brother, then, would be a gnostic atheist. He would believe that that there is not a god and that that position can be definitively proven. You sound like me, another agnostic atheist (correct me if I'm wrong), who does not believe in a god but also believes that it can't be proven either way. Being an atheist doesn't imply absolutism.

Just a clarification, and other than that, I agree with your post. There's a whole lot of grey in this world.

On edit, I'd like to say that I used to think the exact same thing. However, I now refer to myself as atheist and not agnostic.

i am pretty staunchly anti-sky daddy of any flavor, including karma.
humans like to connect dots that arent there. gets un into a lot of trouble.
it's a holdover from our evolutionary past. needing a big leader to protect us.

now we have government. we dont need luck or sky beings.
evolution.
it's a thing.

One can be a staunch Republican, for example.....but they can't be "devout". Because Republicanism is politics, not a religion(although it does seem that way sometimes). EOM

Although I'm more an Orthodox Atheist.

When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, 'Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe?'

See Post 102 for an example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5212409

cuz. science.....

In all truthfulness, I realize that there may possibly be some correlation between lobe seizures and fundamentalist thinking in some individuals; it can indeed happen. But there's no evidence I've ever found suggesting that such phenomena actively, directly cause fundamentalism, on the whole, that is, and to be honest, there probably never will be.

As more brain gets eaten, the person sounds more extreme until there is nothing but starving amoeba left at which point they are ready to retire from Fox News.

Suggesting a relationship btw the "religious experience" and acute cognitive decline.

Stupid begets stupid. And the world keeps spinning.

Love, Peace and Shelter. Lmsp

And I've been an atheist since a very young age. I know that for many sufferers, hallucinations occur, but I've never had many notable ones. I have had a few grand mal seizures, which aren't necessarily part of TLE, but probably originated in another part of my brain, and had a near death experience episode once. Y'know, with seeing a dead relative and all the trappings with the light and peace. But, that was from oxygen deprivation because I was unconscious and choking on my saliva during the grand mal. People have had near death experiences involving angels, Jesus, UFO abductions and all manner of oddities. And the more religious among them will confabulate their hallucinations and experiences into a spiritual communication with higher beings. But, science has proven that oxygen deprivation will lead to NDE.

but people? Eh, not so much. Loving kindness is not part of their religion.

Uh, any true patriot ( that would be one with a brain ) knows the flag is properly displayed with the field in the upper left corner, from the viewer's perspective. Since she's a teabagging moron, of course she has it backwards.

Flag is on a staff with the blue field closest to the end of the staff. Nice try but wrong.

The field is always to be in the upper left corner, whether the flag is displayed horizontal or vertical.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code

I was terribly hung over from the night out .. and at about 6:30am my fellow service member and I raised the U.S. Flag upside down .. That was until an officer came running out of the administration building screaming at us that we had just ''surrendered" the base. Oops.

I hadn't heard of it being a sign of "surrender". LOL, funny story.

Another:
Participating in a sailboat race one time, we had to go to yacht club really early to look over sails and check for tears and other damage. Crew had been out carousing night before, and REALLY hung over. One was crawling over spinnaker on hands and knees, barely functional. I noticed a couple YC employees coming out with flag (flag pole was next to a cannon). I nodded and gestured to other crew to watch. The YC employees hooked up flag ready to raise, and loaded cannon. They were about 10' behind hungover crewmember inspecting spinnaker. When the cannon was fired the guy went straight up in the air about 6', like when you scare a cat. We all howled.

and is not at all abashed at the many negative tweets she's received. She is quick to return punch for punch. My thought is not to give her anymore attention, as she obviously thrives on it. Just let her sink into the primordial mud she came from.

to make the picture on the right look like a tweet, also.

She was an actual suicide bomber.

Different religions, but same general M.O.

The woman on the right would gladly die for her convictions. I'm guessing little "patriotic" Holly would run screaming for the trailer park (no offense to regular trailer residents--it is my plan for retirement) if she actually came in contact with any real danger.

I think it's hysterical and pathetic.

And the comparison to Islamofacist jihadists is entirely fair. They both want mandatory prayer in the school of their religions and only their religions, and they both support violence to achieve their objectives in foreign policy. The jihadists support terrorism, while the Christian militants support imperial wars of conquest and bullying foreign policy.

Both are also very anti-gay.

I hate this crap, and yes I know I'm responding in the thread, bumping it, but when the hell can we talk substance on DU anymore, it's become a tabloid anymore.

for a refund!!

I visualized Mrs Carmody as an old busybody-type woman. The actress in the movie reminded me of a Michelle Bachmann kind of crazy. Actually was a LOT creepier and more scary.

More people will wake up and see how evil and destructive is religion and the loons that follow it

And pretend that they are the religious mainstream. I have been known to say such statements are bigoted, but since I have been told that denouncing anti-religious bigotry on DU is deemed worse than proclaiming anti-religious bigotry; I shall not say it here.

guns, God, and gays...

Various conservative pundits are falling all over themselves attempting to illustrate the difference between Holly and the terrorist woman.

Yes, one was really sickly devout.... and the other is just play acting for personal 15 minutes of fame.

One was pitiful and scary.... the other just pitiful.

... the other uses "convictions" to gain notoriety.

*I don't approve of the suicide bomber's method, but she did stay true to her convictions.

Thanks Cali.. this is priceless. Fundamentalist haters of any religion are a cancer on the Planet.

Well done.

and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." - Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona) in 1994

to make it viral...

no matter where it comes from. That crooked grin says so much. "Oh well, you're going to die" being chief among them.

Too much social media makes the crazy,crazier!

I don't think she is fooling anyone or swaying peoples opinions of HL, she is just the flavor of the day among a million nutjob flavors.

.

A preferred and more enlightened response would be to look at both women with compassion and try to understand why their world view is different.

Because I'll tell you something.

Their view is just as valid as yours or mine.

#unproductiveintolerance

Valid?

"Having a sound basis in logic and fact"



I don't think the word means what you think it means.

How this is not understood is beyond me.

We don't know them, but maybe the American was raised in a home with nothing but fervent believers in (fill in blanks), maybe she was abused, maybe there were drugs and alcohol being used by those around her. For her experience, her view is valid.

Maybe the other woman lost parents to violence and has known nothing but the horrors of war and intolerance. She, too, is a product of these things and her view is valid.

No different from many progressives, some of whom could be called "fundamentalist" or "extremist" in their POV.

In these rare cases, their experiences teach them that all religions are evil, that all drugs are good, all police are bad, all guns are bad and....


....and that anyone who disagrees with them are deserving of mocking and bigotry. "Y'all Kada".

You call that tolerant and progressive?

From the many cultural anthropology courses I've taken, I'd call it "ethnocentrism", and it's perfectly normal, but it's not very enlightened or advanced.

Have a nice life.

because...it's BUNK.....


"maybe..... maybe.....maybe...."

I can do that too.


MAYBE she's just a spoiled brat who doesn't like black people because her daddy told her so....so she plays Teabagger.

MAYBE her entire family was killed by Muslims....so she eats at Chick-fil-a and shops at Hobby Lobby to get back at them.


Anyway..... bunch of "maybes" does not make anything valid. Excuses do not make anything valid.

"Valid for her" does not make anything actually "valid"...as in based on facts and logic.

All that's missing is a Duck Dynasty t-shirt.

I feel really bad for her kids. Hope they all grow up to be die-hard liberal gun-control supporting atheists.

Thanks for the thread, Cali_Democrat.

That's gotta' be her.

on full display.

Teahadist with racist values and NRA credentials.

Has that ever crossed the mind of those gun-totin', bible-thumpin', Chick-fil-A-eatin', Hobby Lobby-shoppin' patriots? Ever?

a wannabe cool kid; bully in waiting, rubbing shit in the faces of the nerds
so she can have the bona fides of being an asshole conservative.

Geography determines which religion they pick, not theology.

There is a reason why I call them teahadists.

Her Muslim cousin. Two nuts from the same tree!

Of course, one would hope they would reflect on such a comparison and find it troubling...but I know too many gun nutters personally. All they will do is make up some lame ass excuse as to her right to have the gun, bible and flag...while ignoring the fact that they look like a religious terrorist.

IOW, they don't have the capacity to adapt or learn from such encounters. Seems to be a main flaw in GOP morans.

Failure to evolve is a common thread in right-wingland. Possibly explained by the fact that conservatives' ancestors came out of the trees head-first.

But HER crazy smells like apple pie. And self-delusion.

Amazing documentary about exactly this subject. Compares the rise of militant Islam and Neoconservatism and shows the common threads.

It's a bit older, but still very relevant today. Really insightful. And the whole thing is available on YouTube.

A must watch if you have a few hours.

That's about as deep as her intellect goes. She won't see the irony. They never do.

they look like twins

Everybody got their own tree. I say we all go back to tree worship. I'm gonna worship the red maple in my front yard.

How were these pictures supposed to upset Liberals so much? We just think she looks stupid, from what people have been posting on FB. I don't get what she thought would make us mad?

from Americans against the teaparty:

http://aattp.org/meet-holly-a-lying-right-wing-christian-taliban-ammosexual-whackjob-images/

as well as this follow-up:

http://aattp.org/christian-jihadist-takes-to-fox-news-after-getting-blasted-by-americans-against-the-tea-party-video/

or commit suicide, in furtherance of her views.

Unlike the woman on the right who murdered four people and killed herself in the process.

While she is ignorant, immature, and misguided, I don't think the woman on the left can be considered a terrorist.

some kind of tearorist act in itself too?

I know FUX noise do it for pRofit, but that twit?

One woman lived in the hell-on-earth that is Gaza; the other in comfy suburban USA.